# Diplomacy, Appeasement, and Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2008, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924 "2008-05-20T02:10:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/1 "2008-05-20T02:10:10Z")
President Bush set off a controversy when he suggested that the Democrats favor a policy toward Iran that amounts to “appeasement”, likening it to Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Adolph Hitler on the eve of WWII. But this is not 1938, Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Amadinejhad is not Hitler. At the time of the Munich Conference, Hitler had been demanding that the Sudentenland in Czechoslovakia go to Germany or else he would go to war over it. Desperate to avoid war, Britain and France agreed to give it to him in exchange for his promise that this was his last territorial demand, even though we now know that full-scale military action would have made Hitler back down. But of course Hitler was a megalomaniac and fully intended to take over all of Europe. The basic point about the dangers of appeasement is that giving in to threats only encourages more threats. But Iran is not making territorial demands or threatening war. For all their expressed hostility to the US, meddling in Iraq, and defiance of the international community over their nuclear program, Iran’s leaders are not engaged in some blackmail scheme. Therefore any diplomatic overture to Iran will not automatically cause them to launch a major attack, and yet refusing to talk to them is not exactly compelling them to change their attitude. In short, we have nothing to lose. Unfortunately, by now we have little to gain. The ideal time for a diplomatic overture with Iran was in the wake of our invasion of Afghanistan. We used the stick, it was time to break out the carrot. In the days after 9/11 there was a huge pro-American rally in Teheran and the Iranian government offered to help us against Al Queada—after all, Iran is Shiite while Al Queada are Sunni. Getting Iran on our side was critical in winning the War on Terrorism, but instead, Bush denounced them as part of the “Axis of Evil”. What we should have done instead was engage in “back door diplomacy” with Iran’s Revolutionary Council, led by Ayatollah Khameni. We should have said to them, “We’ve been looking the other way while you’ve been supporting Hezbolla, but in the post-9/11 world, we will no longer abide. If you don’t get with the program and support worldwide anti-terrorism efforts, things will go very badly for Iran. But if we do see progress, we’ll begin talks aimed at restoring diplomatic relations and welcoming Iran back into the international community”. Obviously this is all very dicey speculation. I mean, how can things have gone any better than they have under Bush’s leadership? We’ve got the Iranians and all the other Muslims right where we want them. After all, we all know what cowards they all are. Now then, as most of us seem to have forgotten, until 2004 the President of Iran was the moderate, pro-Western Khatami. At the time it was understood that the Iranian President has no real power, which is why the emphasis is on getting through to the “Mullahs”, i.e. the Revolutionary Council. But these days, everyone is obsessed with Amadinejhad. Even though he has no means to launch an attack, his words are threatening enough. That is why we should by trying to get through to the mullahs. If Amadinejhad’s stated desire to “erase the Zionist Regime from the map” correctly translates to “nuke Israel and kill millions of people” then we should be putting the question to the mullahs, “What’s up with that?” For more of my bullshit, see [Squeaky Wheels](http://www.squeakywheelsblog.com) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/2 "2008-05-20T02:25:50Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] Unfortunately, by now we have little to gain. The ideal time for a diplomatic overture with Iran was in the wake of our invasion of Afghanistan. We used the stick, it was time to break out the carrot. In the days after 9/11 there was a huge pro-American rally in Teheran and the Iranian government offered to help us against Al Queada—after all, Iran is Shiite while Al Queada are Sunni. Getting Iran on our side was critical in winning the War on Terrorism, but instead, Bush denounced them as part of the “Axis of Evil”. [/quote] I agree. [QUOTE=sqweels] What we should have done instead was engage in “back door diplomacy” with Iran’s Revolutionary Council, led by Ayatollah Khameni. We should have said to them, “We’ve been looking the other way while you’ve been supporting Hezbolla, but in the post-9/11 world, we will no longer abide. If you don’t get with the program and support worldwide anti-terrorism efforts, things will go very badly for Iran. But if we do see progress, we’ll begin talks aimed at restoring diplomatic relations and welcoming Iran back into the international community”. [/quote] Well, first we’d have to stop [supporting people officially labeled as terrorists by us](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization) in Iran, before we could say something like that and be taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/3 "2008-05-20T15:20:39Z")
I mentioned the “carrot and the stick”, but also in order is a sophisticated game of “good cop, bad cop”. I mentioned “back door” diplomacy with the Revolutionary Council, but was un-specific as to the nature of the envoy. Obviously, who the mullahs would be willing to meet with matters. Perhaps a key ally or the UN should be conducting the talks while warning of what the crazy Americans will do if they don’t come to an agreement. Especially if McCain wins. If Obama wins, his administraton could be Good Cop to the Republicans’ Bad Cop, but either way, I’m not recommending a state visit between the US President and Ahmadinejad . Triangulating between him and the mullahs is part of the game. During Ahmadinejad’s infamous visit to the US last year, I wish someone had asked him the following question: “On October 26, 2005, you said that ‘the occupying regime must be wiped off the map’, meaning Israel. My question is, were you ordered to make that statement by your country’s ruling Revolutionary Council?” I think his response would have been interesting. It may well have put him on the spot. It may very well be that the remark was the announcement of an offical policy to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Or it may be that he was advocating a one-state solution and calling for elections throughout Palestine–that is, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza–the result of which would be that what is now the Israeli government would no longer exist. But what fun is that? Anyway, here’s the Wikipedia article on that issue: [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech) Some people look at the Middle East situation and see problems. But most people look at it and see justification, which I think is a more optimistic view. That is, if you’re into action and adventure 'n stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/4 "2008-05-20T15:38:12Z")
Iran is aligning itself with Russia and China which makes our threats even stupider. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/5 "2008-05-20T15:49:46Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] It may very well be that the remark was the announcement of an offical policy to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Or it may be that he was advocating a one-state solution and calling for elections throughout Palestine–that is, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza–the result of which would be that what is now the Israeli government would no longer exist. But what fun is that? [/QUOTE] He has constantly made it clear, as has been referenced in these debates countless times, that he is not talking about nuking Israel. He is harbouring the fantasy of the State of Israel disappearing as a political entity. He explicitly referenced the disappearance of the Soviet Union. Israel will become Palestine (yeah, right). [CBS Cite](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/12/ap/world/mainD8LVI2AO0.shtml) > [@](#): > > “The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom,” Ahmadinejad said during Tuesday’s meeting in his offices, according to the official IRNA news agency. > > He called for elections among “Jews, Christians and Muslims so the population of Palestine can select their government and destiny for themselves in a democratic manner.” And according to the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/6 "2008-05-20T15:59:42Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] Now then, as most of us seem to have forgotten, until 2004 the President of Iran was the moderate, pro-Western Khatami. At the time it was understood that the Iranian President has no real power, which is why the emphasis is on getting through to the “Mullahs”, i.e. the Revolutionary Council. [/QUOTE] Nitpick: You mean the [Guardian Council.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Guardians) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/7 "2008-05-20T17:28:44Z")
[The _Jerusalem Post_ this week quoted a Bush Admin official as saying they plan to attack Iran in the coming months, but the WH denies it.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-20-bush-iran_N.htm) Dunno **what** to make of that. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2008, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/8 "2008-05-20T20:00:09Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Nitpick: You mean the [Guardian Council.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Guardians) [/QUOTE] :smack: I always knew Curtis Sliwa was up to no good. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/9 "2008-05-28T19:15:50Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [The _Jerusalem Post_ this week quoted a Bush Admin official as saying they plan to attack Iran in the coming months, but the WH denies it.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-20-bush-iran_N.htm) Dunno **what** to make of that. [/QUOTE] [And more . . .](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html) > [@](#): > > NEW YORK - The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently. > > Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear. > > The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC’s elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds’ stated mission is to spread Iran’s revolution of 1979 throughout the region. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/10 "2008-05-28T19:40:54Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] We used the stick, it was time to break out the carrot. In the days after 9/11 there was a huge pro-American rally in Teheran and the Iranian government offered to help us against Al Queada—after all, Iran is Shiite while Al Queada are Sunni. [/quote] Unfortunately that’s both drastically oversimplified, and lacks essential facts. The facts are that, before 9/11, Iran was actively collaborating with Al Quaeda in a number of ways, knowing full well their ideology, methodology and goals. If anything, it was the ‘stick’ that we were clearly wielding after 9/11 that made Iran rethink its support for Al Quaeda. [QUOTE=sqweels] Getting Iran on our side was critical in winning the War on Terrorism, but instead, Bush denounced them as part of the “Axis of Evil”. [/quote] Except there’s never been an actual, credible Iranian initiative to halt its massive support for global terrorist organizations, only dropping Al Queada from their list of supported organizations. It’s hard to say that a group which still has Hezbollah and Hamas on its payroll is an ally in tWaT. [QUOTE=sqweels] What we should have done instead was engage in “back door diplomacy” with Iran’s Revolutionary Council, led by Ayatollah Khameni. We should have said to them, “We’ve been looking the other way while you’ve been supporting Hezbolla, but in the post-9/11 world, we will no longer abide. If you don’t get with the program and support worldwide anti-terrorism efforts, things will go very badly for Iran. But if we do see progress, we’ll begin talks aimed at restoring diplomatic relations and welcoming Iran back into the international community”. [/quote] There was a proposal, delivered to us via Switzerland, which made clear several things 1) there was something of a desire for peace and stability from the Supreme Leader. 2) Despite his power, the Supreme Leader and political leaders could not even possibly make such overtures in public, because they didn’t have the strength to go against the rest of their own government on that issue. 3) Even the metrics of peace and stability were ‘maybe’ issues and what, exactly, was being proposed was never made explicitly clear. [QUOTE=tagos] And according to the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. [/quote] And according to the same NIE, Iran may have restarted its nuclear weapons program by 2007. They found that it was plausible that the program remained stopped, but that they could not confirm it to a high degree of confidence. Specifically, the judgment the NIE rendered was “credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence”. Specifically, the intel was not "based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. ". That part always gets left off, eh? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/11 "2008-05-29T02:27:26Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] The facts are that, before 9/11, Iran was actively collaborating with Al Quaeda in a number of ways, knowing full well their ideology, methodology and goals. If anything, it was the ‘stick’ that we were clearly wielding after 9/11 that made Iran rethink its support for Al Quaeda. [/quote] Go ahead and clarify the extent to which Iran was collaborating with Al Quaeda, but if we compelled them to rethink their support for them, then we should have fostered that trend (and then get them to rethink their support for Hezbolla) while pesenting a face-saving avenue, rather than pushing them into a corner. > [@](#): > > Except there’s never been an actual, credible Iranian initiative to halt its massive support for global terrorist organizations, only dropping Al Queada from their list of supported organizations. It’s hard to say that a group which still has Hezbollah and Hamas on its payroll is an ally in tWaT. We could have bloody well tried to get them to be, rather than assuming the worst and acting the worst ourselves. > [@](#): > > There was a proposal, delivered to us via Switzerland, which made clear several things 1) there was something of a desire for peace and stability from the Supreme Leader. 2) Despite his power, the Supreme Leader and political leaders could not even possibly make such overtures in public, because they didn’t have the strength to go against the rest of their own government on that issue. 3) Even the metrics of peace and stability were ‘maybe’ issues and what, exactly, was being proposed was never made explicitly clear. So instead of engaging in secret talks in hopes of clearing the air, we decided the best way to bring them around was to give them the silent treatment? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/12 "2008-05-29T02:31:21Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [The _Jerusalem Post_ this week quoted a Bush Admin official as saying they plan to attack Iran in the coming months, but the WH denies it.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-20-bush-iran_N.htm) Dunno **what** to make of that. [/QUOTE] Either they want Iran to think it’s going to happen to apply pressure, or they really are going to. Something tells me they’re going to if they can get away with it. I just don’t know what else to expect. I don’t think they can live with an Iranian hegemony, which IMO, if they don’t act now, is a certainty. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/13 "2008-05-29T02:33:15Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [And more . . .](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE28Ak01.html) [/QUOTE] Gotta love a guy named Muhammad Cohen. Though, I don’t trust him, I think he’s playing both sides. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/14 "2008-05-30T15:29:05Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Gotta love a guy named Muhammad Cohen. Though, I don’t trust him, I think he’s playing both sides. [/QUOTE] I can imagine things were a little tense at his parents’ wedding. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/15 "2008-05-30T19:14:51Z")
Squeels, if you honestly don’t know any of the facts or the specifics you’re requesting I give to you, shouldn’t you google _before_ starting a GD thread? Or at least posting to GQ first? How do you believe you can run an informed and intellectually fulfilling debate if you don’t know the most basic facts about the situation? [QUOTE=sqweels] Go ahead and clarify the extent to which Iran was collaborating with Al Quaeda, [/quote] In the future, I’d suggest the google search string “Iran, al Quaeda”. For now, I’ll do a bit of your research for you. [ > [@](#): > > Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan > between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993,another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983.The relation- > ship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7,al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued 52 in ensuing years. ]([http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf)) [ > [@](#): > > Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran,on their way to and from Afghanistan.For example,Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda. Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle”operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001. ]([http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec7.pdf)) > [@](#): > > After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. As for whether or not Iran would’ve known Bin Ladin’s goals, methods and ideology, from the report: > [@](#): > > In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician,Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a “World Islamic Front.” A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority,but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the “individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it 1 is possible to do it.” > > Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin 2 Ladin enlarged on these themes. > > He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels.“It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities,” he said. Asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied:“We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian.As far as we are concerned, they are all targets.” > > […] > > Bin Ladin continued to push his public message. On May 7, the deputy head of al Qaeda’s military committee, Mohammed Atef, faxed to Bin Ladin’s London office a new fatwa issued by a group of sheikhs located in Afghanistan.A week later, it appeared in Al Quds al Arabi,the same Arabic-language newspaper in London that had first published Bin Ladin’s February fatwa, and it conveyed the same message—the duty of Muslims to carry out holy war against the enemies of Islam and to expel the Americans from the Gulf region.Two weeks after that,Bin Ladin gave a videotaped interview to ABC News with the same slogans, adding that “we do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians; they are 90 all targets in this fatwa.” [QUOTE=sqweels] but if we compelled them to rethink their support for them, then we should have fostered that trend (and then get them to rethink their support for Hezbolla) while pesenting a face-saving avenue, rather than pushing them into a corner. [/quote] Again, you really, really need to learn about the topic before posting about it. Assuming that Iran’s support for Al Quaeda was for the same reasons as Hezbollah is simply false. Assuming that the US’ reaction to Hezbollah was the same as to Al Quaeda is simply false. Assuming that all the factions in Iran’s government would have even rolled over and stopped supporting Hezbollah just because some factions did is, again, simply false. [QUOTE=sqweels] We could have bloody well tried to get them to be, rather than assuming the worst and acting the worst ourselves. [/quote] You are using an idiosyncratic and invented definition of “assuming”. You’re probably doing that, I’d wager, because you’re ignorant of the facts, so you figure that a conclusion must be ‘assumed’ rather than based on decades worth of information. Much like many Creationists talking about how evolutionary trees are just “guesses”. Yes? That factions within Iran’s government, who cannot simply be ignored any more than they’d be amenable to rapprochement with the Great Satan, exist and support Hamas and Hezbollah and show no sighs of changing their tunes is a fact. That even the Supreme Leader has stated shown that he almost definitely doesn’t have the political clout to oppose them on many matter has, also, been demonstrated. I’d also point out that your “assuming the worst and acting the worst ourselves” is mere bombast. If that had even a shred of truth, we would have assumed that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was directed at us, that their Hezbollah agents within the US were getting ready to hit us, and, well, we’d already be at war. We didn’t, we ain’t. Your rhetoric is running away with you. And there _have_ been secret talks that have continued to the present date, so again, I’m not sure why you’re posting this sort of stuff without knowing the most basic of facts about it. [QUOTE=sqweels] So instead of engaging in secret talks in hopes of clearing the air, we decided the best way to bring them around was to give them the silent treatment? [/QUOTE] That bears not even a passing resemblance to what I actually said. It seems, in fact, that you focused exclusively on my third bullet point while totally ignoring the second. Cherry picking of that sort neither strengthens nor defends your argument. In fact, it reveals a profound and fundamental failure in your argument. You seem to be deliberately ignoring what actually happened in order to claim that we “gave them the silent treatment” in order to “bring them around.” The fact that it wasn’t a credible overture with a strong chance of success, due specifically to opposition forces within Iran’s own government, evidently doesn’t even enter into your rhetoric. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/16 "2008-05-30T20:17:20Z")
Very thoughtful of you to provide such sterling research, and very convincing it is, too. But who? What? Your link starts on page two, for some reason, and offers a casual glance little in the way of identifying the source. As I’m sure you are aware, this issue is very contentious and such contention fosters exaggerated positions, and oftimes, outright lies. Might we have a bit more as to the source of this unequivocal citation? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/17 "2008-05-30T21:06:08Z")
You are kidding, right?? That looks like it’s from the 9/11 commission report 'luci…what more ‘unequivocal citation’ were you looking for exactly?? Or did you want a pro-Iranian pro-HB/AQ source instead? To help you look at the first page you missed, here is a [link](http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/911/) to what I think Fin was using as his source site. Knock yourself out. -XT ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/18 "2008-05-30T21:13:42Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] You are kidding, right?? That looks like it’s from the 9/11 commission report 'luci…what more ‘unequivocal citation’ were you looking for exactly?.. [/QUOTE] Merely the source identified as the cite is offered, pretty much standard procedure, is it not? > [@](#): > > …Or did you want a pro-Iranian pro-HB/AQ source instead?.. That stinks. Don’t do that again, OK? If not beneath you, it oughta be. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/19 "2008-05-30T21:19:02Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Merely the source identified as the cite is offered, pretty much standard procedure, is it not? [/QUOTE] Well…apologies then. I guess I assumed that everyone knew what the source was just by looking at it. I’ve skimmed the report in other threads so I recognized it right off. For that matter, just looking at the URL kind of said what it was now that I look more closely. [QUOTE=elucidator] That stinks. Don’t do that again, OK? If not beneath you, it oughta be. [/QUOTE] Well, I THOUGHT you were saying that the 9/11 Commission (final) report wasn’t an ‘unequivocal citation’, so I was asking what WOULD be. That said, as I indicated above, apologies…I guess I didn’t get what you were asking there and didn’t get that you really didn’t know the source. -XT ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924/20 "2008-05-30T21:59:32Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Very thoughtful of you to provide such sterling research, and very convincing it is, too. [/quote] Thought so myself. [QUOTE=elucidator] But who? What? [/quote] The headings on literally every other page of both PDF’s of the report that say “The 9/11 Commission Report” ? They are a very good clue. But they clearly must be very easy to miss, given what I’m sure was a good faith attempt on your part to analyze the information and not simply dismiss it with content-free snark. What’s even more interesting, luc, is that I’ve posted these very same links, and the very same quotes, at you and/or in threads to which you were actively posting and responding to/at me. Curiouser and curiouser. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/diplomacy-appeasement-and-iran/449924.md?page=2)